A Happy House Home Inspection

The invoice that Mr [redacted] attached clearly shows that the cost of the actual home inspection was $200, and the line item underneath that is for $for the sewer scopeDue to the fact that the error occurred in the home inspection, and there is no verifiable evidence to support the claim regarding the sewer, the inspection cost is what is eligible for refundWe attempted to explain this to Mr [redacted] via email, but per his response, he did not understand what we explained and thought that seeking to tarnish our company reputation was the best route to seek further refundBecause of this, we will not be offering even the $at this point, as Mr [redacted] has sought to tarnish our reputation on multiple websites instead of seeking to understand the policies he agreed to when signing the inspection agreementHad Mr [redacted] worked with us to resolve the issue, we would have gladly refunded the $200, but since he has chosen to continue to allege erroneous claims about how we’re handling the situation, the refund is no longer an option

Although we strive, as a business, for perfection, we are human, and do make mistakesWe do always look for the opportunity to make things right by the client if an issue arisesWhen Mr*** contacted us regarding the issue, he was extremely inflammatory with his tone and language, and it took
over minutes of asking him to calm down for us to be able to have a rational conversationWe have all clients sign inspection agreements at the time of inspection, which we have on record for Mr***In these agreements, it is stated that: “CLIENT acknowledges that the liability of INSPECTOR, its agents and/or employees, for claims or damages, costs of defense or suit, attorney’s fees and expenses arising out of or related to the INSPECTOR’S negligence or breach of any obligation under this Agreement, including errors and omissions in the inspection or the report, shall be limited to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the fee paid to the INSPECTOR, and this liability shall be exclusive.” In accordance with this agreement, we offered to refund Mr*** the $he paid for the inspectionMr*** agreed to this arrangement and we were in the process of refunding him the money when he called us back and demanded more moneyTo further comment on the issues mentioned, in his inspection report, we recommended that Mr*** seek professional consultation regarding the heaterRegardless of the age of the unit, if this recommendation had been followed, this issue may not have arisen when the house was soldWhile we understand the clients’ frustration, his claim that we “refused to take ownership of the error” is entirely false, as we sought to refund him the inspection cost when we spoke with himRegarding his comment about the sewer line, the verbiage in the inspection report clearly states: “Remember that ALL sewer scope videos should be evaluated by a plumber as Inspector is not a licensed plumber and performs the scope to provide a visual reference to the buyer.” Mr*** did not have the sewer line looked at immediately after inspection, as suggested in the report, so to allege that incorrect information was potentially given on the part of the company, based on his assessment of other errors, is by definition, slanderous, and uncalled for We take pride as a company in ensuring our clients are referred to the proper experts outside the scope of the home inspection so as to help them further assess any issuesIf they do not choose to follow our recommendations, we can do nothing more, as we have done our due diligenceWe regret that Mr*** feels wronged by our company, and hope that this explanation puts things into perspective for othersTell us why here

On 10/10/2014, while preparing to purchase my first home, I recieved a home inspection from A Happy House Home Inspection LLC In the report I recieved for this inspection A Happy House Home Inspection LLC indicated that the "Approximate age of furnace:" was (years old)
I recently put the house back on the market and In November of I recieved an inspection report from a potential buyer In the potential buyer's inspection report it indicated that the furnace was 37+ years old
Due to the discrepancy in reports I had a handful of HVAC professionals come out and confirm the age of the furnace The furnace is in fact from and not from as A Happy House LLC indicated on my report
The age of the furnace is identified via the serial number on the side of the unit I, an unlicensed HVAC professional, was able to take a picture of the serial number, google it, and determine the age of the appliance It is my feeling that A Happy House LLC did not fulfi

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: I believe Hans Coleman did not perform his duties as an inspector by misrepresenting key pieces of information in my inspection reportThis is solely due to Hans' negligence as a home inspector. He took non clear photos of the serial number and then populated the report based on those no clear photos. His negligence gave me inaccurate information to base my home buying decision on. Had I known the furnace was from at the time of purchase I would have requested a new furnace or credit at closing. Because he provided me inaccurate information I'm now having to pay the bill ($2,200) for a new furnace when selling my house. I truly believe you should be able to expect more from your inspector and I would like ALL money paid to A Happy House LLC returned to meAs previously stated I, an unlicensed and untrained individual, was able to take a picture of the serial numbers, hit the internet, and determine and EXACT age of the appliance
Sincerely,
*** ***

The invoice that Mr. [redacted] attached clearly shows that the cost of the actual home inspection was $200, and the line item underneath that is for $100 for the sewer scope. Due to the fact that the error occurred in the home inspection, and there is no verifiable evidence to support the claim regarding the sewer, the inspection cost is what is eligible for refund. We attempted to explain this to Mr. [redacted] via email, but per his response, he did not understand what we explained and thought that seeking to tarnish our company reputation was the best route to seek further refund. Because of this, we will not be offering even the $200 at this point, as Mr. [redacted] has sought to tarnish our reputation on multiple websites instead of seeking to understand the policies he agreed to when signing the inspection agreement. Had Mr. [redacted] worked with us to resolve the issue, we would have gladly refunded the $200, but since he has chosen to continue to allege erroneous claims about how we’re handling the situation, the refund is no longer an option.